A central theme from these various
sources began to emerge, which was packaged quite nicely by Rebecca when she
said: "In the past fifteen years, the number of nonprofit theater
companies in the United States has doubled while audiences and funding have
shrunk. Neither the field nor the next generation of artists is served by this
unexamined multiplication of companies based on the same old model. The NEA's
statistics on nonprofit growth, set against its sobering reports on declining
arts participation, illuminate a crucial nexus for the field, a location of
both profound failure and potential transformation."

If data indicates that the field
continues to expand at an unsustainable rate propagating the continuance of a
model that is considered by some to be out of touch with current realities,
then why do we continue in such a manner? My thoughts below...

It's as American as apple pie. Let's face it, expansion is sexy. We are the children of
manifest destiny. Starting from nothing and growing an empire. Conquering new
frontiers. These are all American ideals. Hell, many of our childhood
boardgames indoctrinate this philosophy. Is it any surprise that as adults we
equate expansion with success? And this perception of success is handsomely
rewarded. Grow your audience and your revenue, and you will increase your
likelihood of additional contributed revenue. But if those metrics decline,
you'll need to do some explaining.

Follow the money. In the 1990s, educational programming became a funding
priority, so every theater across the nation rushed to create an education
department. To some, it didn't matter if the programming was sub par, they just knew
they needed a department to be competitive. In the 2000s, capital projects
became a priority, and more than a decade later, we have new buildings all
across the country. Some were desperately needed as aging infrastructure was
failing, while others were less of a necessity but were built on hopes of
significant future returns. After opening, some organizations thrived in their
new facilities, while many others struggled almost from day one. In his article
"New Facilities Aren't Always a Qualified Success"
in the Kansas City Star, Scott Cantrell discusses the challenges of
several major new performing arts centers, including Dallas's AT&T Performing Arts
Center, Philadelphia's Kimmel Center and Miami's Adrienne Arsht
Center. All of which opened without finishing their fundraising campaigns
and operated with multi-million deficits. Two years into the new decade, it
seems that funders have started to realize the magnitude of the problem, and
are now beginning to focus on sustainability as a priority, providing working
capital to companies to right-size, rather than providing incentives to expand.

Build it, and they will come. Prior to launching a capital campaign, most organizations
commission at least one feasibility study to determine whether or not the
company has the capacity to raise the necessary funds to pay for capital
improvements. But how many thoroughly study whether or not there is enough
support in their communities to sustain an expansion for decades to come? When
Arena Stage opened the Mead Center for American Theater, I was thankful
that the new building only increased overall capacity by 6% in comparison to
the previous structure. Although renovations and improvements were desperately
needed, I wasn't convinced that we could introduce a large amount of additional
inventory into a city which was already trying to support five previously built
new theater complexes. If desired and demand warranted, Arena Stage was able to
increase inventory by expanding beyond its typical 9 month season, but they
weren't forced into an expansion due to a large increase in the capacity of the
new complex. The challenge for Washington at this moment is clear--we have
dramatically increased supply over the past decade, and with our capital
projects now complete, we must develop and support new audience development
campaigns with as much gusto as our capital campaigns. We have to build our
audiences, which up until now, we haven't successfully done in the last decade.
This is the real challenge. Ten years from now, will our new theaters be empty?

Can you display it? I find it fascinating that many museums have an aggressive
acquisition plan but only display a very small percentage of their current
collection. There seems to be a commonly accepted premise that major museums
only display 10% of their collection because they are limited in terms of space
and resources. I can understand acquiring new objects that aren't in display
condition for research purposes, but why expand a collection of display quality
objects if you don't have the opportunities to display what you currently have?
Again, I'm a novice in museum studies, but it would seem to me that before
expanding, a museum might consider shifting its resources to developing
traveling exhibits so its current collection can be seen. What's the point of
acquiring items with very little likelihood of every displaying them to the
public?

What's going on in Ohio? I've been closely following two non-profit arts
organizations based in Ohio over the past few years, as I believe they can be
an example to us all. The first, the Columbus Symphony, was featured in Thomas Cott's
aforementioned email. After struggling for years, they conducted a study that
indicated that the city of Columbus could only support a symphony with an $8
million operating budget instead of the $12.5 million budget they currently
had. From this, they decided to "right-size" their organization to
match the current demand in their market by joining forces with the Columbus Association for the
Performing Arts. Meanwhile across the state, the 90 plus year old Cleveland
Playhouse laid off several senior staff members, dropped two
productions from its season and trimmed its budget by 18% in 2009, prior to
moving to the newly renovated 515 seat Allen Theatre in 2011. Previously, the
Allen Theatre boasted 2,500 seats, but when the Cleveland San Jose Ballet left
town, the Cleveland Opera downsized and Broadway tours dried up, the Allen
Theatre was only in use 90 days out of the year because it was too big for most
productions. The solution--the Cleveland Playhouse, Cleveland State University
and PlayhouseSquare partnered resulting in a newly renovated Allen Theatre
with 1,985 fewer seats! And it seems that it has worked out quite well for all
involved. Revenue for the Cleveland Playhouse more than doubled and an
underused space became the new talk of the town.

This isn't to say that expansion is
always bad, sometimes it is absolutely necessary. However, it isn't always beneficial, even during moments of great success. If your theaters are playing to capacity, perhaps you have
discovered the sweet spot for your organization. Push just a little further,
and too much of a good thing could tip the scales in an unfavorable direction,
leaving you wondering how you managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory. Expansion can be attractive, but stability is pretty damn sexy too.

No comments:

Follow by Email

Subscribe To

About Me

Chad M. Bauman is the Managing Director of Milwaukee Repertory Theater. Opinions on this blog are his own and do not represent his employers in any way. Previously, he was the Associate Executive Director of Arena Stage, the founder of the Technology in Arts Management program at American University and the Director of Marketing and Communications at Americans for the Arts. In addition, he is on faculty at the California Institute of the Arts and Drexel University. As a speaker and consultant, he has worked with a wide variety of clients including City Theatre Company, Carnegie Hall, The Flynn Center for the Performing Arts, the Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, St. Louis Regional Arts Commission, ArtsMidwest, the Arts & Business Council and the National Arts Marketing Project. For three consecutive years starting in 2011, Washington Life Magazine named Chad one of the most influential leaders under 40 in our nation’s capital. M.F.A Producing – CalArts; B.S. Ed in Secondary Education – Missouri State University.